Reliable reward models are essential for text-to-video evaluation and alignment. However, the trade-off between evaluation accuracy and inference efficiency places high demands on the quality of training supervision. Existing approaches often rely on holistic judges with fixed rubrics or open-ended reasoning, leading to incomplete inspection, unfaithful justification, and entangled attribution. We introduce FIRM-Video, a unified checklist-driven data construction framework based on a check-before-score principle: construct dimension-specific checklists, verify each criterion against temporal visual evidence, and aggregate only verified decisions. For Instruction Following, FIRM-Video decomposes prompts into weighted atomic requirements; for World Coherence, it constructs prompt-calibrated, target-specific checks grounded in visible entities and actions; and for Perceptual Quality, it applies a generic taxonomy of visual defects. The verified criteria and scores are further transformed into natural-language analyses for end-to-end reward modeling. Subsequently, we construct FIRM-Video-90K with 88,044 dimension-specific instances from 29,348 videos, and introduce FIRM-Video-Bench with 750 point-wise human annotations across 250 videos. The Qwen3-VL-based FIRM-Video-8B achieves the best overall MAE on FIRM-Video-Bench while consistently delivering the highest VBench Total, Quality, and Semantic Scores in Best-of-8 sampling across three video generators.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Qualitative evaluation case of FIRM-Video-8B , illustrating its improved alignment with human judgments.
Figure 2: Statistics of the FIRM-Video-90K dataset. Left: distributions across evaluation dimensions and score ranges. Right: distributions of video duration and prompt length.
Figure 3: Overview of the FIRM-Video data construction framework and reward model training. Given a prompt and its generated video, FIRM-Video applies a unified check-before-score pipeline to construct fine-grained supervision for instruction following, world coherence, and perceptual quality. The resulting dimension-specific analyses and scores form FIRM-Video-90K, which is then used to train the FIRM-Video-8B reward model.
Model
Instruction Following
World Coherence
Perceptual Quality
Overall
MAE ↓
STD ↓
Acc./Relaxed Acc. ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↓
STD ↓
Acc./Relaxed Acc. ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↓
STD ↓
Acc./Relaxed Acc. ↑
SRCC ↑
MAE ↓
STD ↓
Acc./Relaxed Acc. ↑
Closed-source models
GPT-5
0.62
0.71
0.50/0.88
0.74
1.66
1.19
0.20/0.48
0.49
0.95
0.86
0.34/0.76
0.51
1.08
1.03
0.35/0.71
Gemini-3.1-Pro
0.77
0.76
0.40/0.86
0.71
1.27
1.08
0.28/0.62
0.54
1.44
1.12
0.21/0.59
0.41
1.16
1.04
0.30/0.69
Doubao-Seed-2.0-Lite
0.80
0.83
0.41/0.84
0.67
1.56
1.24
0.24/0.53
0.44
0.80
0.75
0.38/0.84
0.55
1.05
1.03
0.35/0.73
Open-source models
Table 1: Performance comparison on FIRM-Video-Bench across three evaluation dimensions: Instruction Following (IF), World Coherence (WC), and Perceptual Quality (PQ). The two values under Acc./Relaxed Acc. denote strict and relaxed accuracy, respectively. The row marked with † reports the performance of direct data construction pipeline and is excluded from ranking.
Figure 5
Sampling Strategy
Total Score
Quality Score
Semantic Score
Video Quality
Video–Condition Consistency
Subject Consistency
Background Consistency
Temporal Flickering
Imaging Quality
Multiple Objects
Color
Spatial Relationship
Appearance Style
T2V model: LaVie-Base
Random
79.42
81.34
71.77
92.09
97.64
97.63
65.92
37.73
89.65
43.30
23.94
By Qwen3-VL-8B
80.03
81.61
73.73
92.64
97.56
97.60
66.88
50.91
83.11
47.32
24.27
By InternVL3-8B
80.45
82.10
73.82
92.94
97.56
97.56
67.02
50.30
85.85
45.81
24.10
By VideoScore2
79.95
81.61
73.33
92.95
97.80
97.76
66.54
53.73
86.86
45.70
23.87
Table 3: Best-of-N performance comparison of FIRM-Video-8B and other sampling strategies on VBench. The best and second-best results under each T2V generator are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively.
Dimension
Aggregation
MAE ↓
STD ↓
Acc. ↑
Relaxed Acc. ↑
SRCC ↑
IF
mean
0.68
0.70
0.44
0.88
0.69
Importance weighted (ours)
0.68
0.68
0.43
0.90
0.69
WC
mean
0.86
0.83
0.37
0.82
0.61
Importance weighted (ours)
0.80
0.83
0.41
0.84
0.63
Table 4: Aggregation ablations on FIRM-Video-Bench. STD is computed over absolute errors; relaxed accuracy allows a one-point deviation from the expert rating. Best results within each dimension are bold.
Dataset
Dimension
Score=1
Score=2
Score=3
Score=4
Score 5
Total
FIRM-Video-90K
IF
5,104 (17.4%)
8,900 (30.3%)
5,551 (18.9%)
3,806 (13.0%)
5,987 (20.4%)
29,348
WC
4,795 (16.3%)
11,129 (37.9%)
5,649 (19.2%)
2,510 (8.6%)
5,265 (17.9%)
29,348
PQ
874 (3.0%)
3,749 (12.8%)
4,257 (14.5%)
18,331 (62.5%)
2,137 (7.3%)
29,348
All
10,773
23,778
15,457
24,647
13,389
88,044
FIRM-Video-Bench
IF
28 (11.2%)
73 (29.2%)
63 (25.2%)
59 (23.6%)
27 (10.8%)
250
WC
48 (19.2%)
76 (30.4%)
48 (19.2%)
44 (17.6%)
34 (13.6%)
250
Table 5: Score distributions of FIRM-Video-90K and FIRM-Video-Bench.
Reward
VBench Dimension
VBench Group
IF
Dynamic Degree
Quality
Overall Consistency
Cond. Consist.
Object Class
Cond. Consist.
Multiple Objects
Cond. Consist.
Human Action
Cond. Consist.
Color
Cond. Consist.
Table 6: Dimension mapping from VBench dimensions to FIRM-Video reward dimensions. “Quality” and “Cond. Consist.” denote VBench’s Video-Quality and Video–Condition Consistency groups, respectively.
T2V Model
Sampling Strategy
Subject Consistency
Background Consistency
Temporal Flickering
Motion Smoothness
Dynamic Degree
Aesthetic Quality
Imaging Quality
LaVie-Base
Random
92.09
97.64
97.63
96.63
55.56
64.53
65.92
Qwen3-VL-8B
92.64
97.56
97.60
96.62
55.56
64.93
66.88
InternVL3-8B
92.94
97.56
97.56
96.69
61.11
64.74
67.02
VideoScore2
92.95
97.80
97.76
96.39
56.94
64.27
66.54
FIRM-Video-8B
93.66
97.91
98.12
96.58
56.94
64.17
67.46
CogVideoX-2B
Random
93.47
96.66
96.90
97.23
73.61
58.47
59.72
Table 7: Best-of-8 results on the video-quality subdimensions of VBench.
T2V Model
Sampling Strategy
Object Class
Multiple Objects
Human Action
Color
Spatial Relationship
Scene
Appearance Style
Temporal Style
Overall Consistency
LaVie-Base
Random
93.12
37.73
92.00
89.65
43.30
52.33
23.94
24.73
27.20
Qwen3-VL-8B
91.61
50.91
96.00
83.11
47.32
52.69
24.27
25.25
27.75
InternVL3-8B
95.81
50.30
96.00
85.85
45.81
51.02
24.10
25.03
27.46
VideoScore2
91.06
53.73
93.00
86.86
45.70
50.80
23.87
25.16
27.33
FIRM-Video-8B
90.51
58.99
93.00
88.20
51.20
52.03
24.40
25.19
27.57
CogVideoX-2B
Random
76.11
49.16
87.00
88.43
61.30
39.90
22.95
23.77
24.43
Table 8: Best-of-8 results on the video–condition consistency subdimensions of VBench.
Figure 5: Human annotation interface for FIRM-Video-Bench. Annotators rate instruction following, perceptual quality, and world coherence on a five-point scale.
Figure 6: Qualitative example of FIRM-Video-8B evaluation (1)
Figure 7: Qualitative example of FIRM-Video-8B evaluation (2)
Figure 8: Qualitative example of FIRM-Video-8B evaluation (3)
Figure 9: Qualitative example of FIRM-Video-8B evaluation (4)
Figure 10: Qualitative example of FIRM-Video-8B evaluation (5)
Recent video generation models can produce highly realistic videos from natural language instructions, with visual quality approaching cinematic standards. Existing evaluation benchmarks, however, predominantly assess visual quality, aesthetic appeal and physical plausibility, while paying limited attention to text, an essential medium for conveying information in everyday scenes. A generated video may appear visually compelling and feature lifelike subjects, yet still render the text within the scene incorrectly. To address this overlooked dimension, we introduce VTR-Bench, a systematic benchmark for evaluating the Visual Text Rendering capabilities of video generation models. VTR-Bench situates text within concrete application scenarios, such as advertisements and scientific videos, with 300 carefully constructed prompts spanning five scenario categories. We develop an automated evaluation pipeline with human alignments that separately assesses text fidelity through carrier-specific transcription and scene and motion requirements through a prompt-specific chain of query. Beyond evaluation, we introduce a Keyframe-Guided Agentic Framework in which a Director agent coordinates image and video generation with visual evaluation, guiding iterative refinement and candidate selection through visual feedback. Experiments on 11 state-of-the-art models reveal widespread difficulties in accurately rendering scene text, with the best-performing model recording an overall word error rate (WER) of 0.250. We further analyze text rendering failures to characterize the challenges faced by current video generation models. These findings highlight visual text rendering as a key challenge for video generation and demonstrate a practical path toward improvement. Code is available at https://github.com/hardenyu21/VTR-Bench.
Yu Huang, Jungang Li, Zhiyuan Wang +8
Department of Data Science, City University of Hong Kong · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Westlake University +3
Evaluating generated videos remains challenging because existing benchmarks rely on fixed evaluation content, cover only a subset of generation and editing settings, and provide limited evidence for their scores. We introduce VideoArgus, a unified rubric-grounded framework covering five video generation and editing settings. For each input instance, VideoArgus generates an output-blind, sample-specific rubric once and reuses it to evaluate all corresponding candidate videos. The rubric defines concrete criteria, scoring rules, failure modes, and evidence plans, which guide criterion-specific VLM QA and visual tools to produce evidence-grounded criterion scores, rationales, and a diagnostic report. We further construct VideoArgus-Bench, containing 1,026 curated input instances built from 653 high-quality images and 416 high-quality videos, with all benchmark rubrics pre-generated, frozen, and released. On a separate 1,260-video human-alignment set, VideoArgus achieves higher within-input Spearman and Kendall correlations with human judgments than the corresponding benchmark-specific evaluators across all five tasks. Model rankings also remain largely consistent across different rubric-generation and evaluation-VLM backbones. All code and data are released. Visit our project page: https://zzzmyyzeng.github.io/VideoArgus
Multimodal reward models have advanced substantially in text and image domains, yet progress in video understanding reward modeling remains severely limited by the lack of robust evaluation benchmarks and high-quality preference data. To address this, we propose a unified framework spanning benchmark design, data construction, and reward model training. We introduce Video Understanding Reward Bench (VURB), a benchmark featuring 2,100 preference pairs with long chain-of-thought reasoning traces (averaging 1,143 tokens) and majority voting evaluation across general, long, and reasoning-oriented video tasks. We further construct Video Understanding Preference Dataset (VUP-35K) via a fully automated pipeline, providing large-scale high-quality supervision for video reward training. Building on the data, we train VideoDRM and VideoGRM, a discriminative and a generative reward model, both achieving state-of-the-art performance on VURB and VideoRewardBench. Further analysis confirms that VUP-35K enhances both reward performance and model reasoning capability, while VideoDRM and VideoGRM yield significant gains under best-of-N test-time scaling.
Yuancheng Wei, Linli Yao, Lei Li +4
South China University of Technology · Peking University · The University of Hong Kong +1